Senators Feinstein & Ensign Seek to Ensure Funds Meant for Low-Income Students Are Directed Toward Academic Achievement

Senators Feinstein & Ensign Seek to Ensure Funds Meant for Low-Income Students Are Directed Toward Academic Achievement
July 9, 2003

Washington DC - Senators Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif) and John Ensign (R-NV) have introduced legislation to ensure that Title I funds meant to improve the academic achievement of low-income students are directed toward this purpose and are not unduly siphoned off to non-academic purposes.

To achieve this, the legislation provides a precise definition of Title I instructional services - something the federal government has never done - so that each State can apply the same national standards, and requires that 90 percent of the funds are used for this purpose.

"I believe the Federal government is responsible for making the process as clear as possible as it relates to the use of Title I funds dedicated for low-income students. Unfortunately, we haven't lived up to our end of the bargain and current law is much too vague," Senator Feinstein said.

Since its origin in 1965, Title I has provided federal assistance to virtually every school district in the country for children attending schools with a large concentration of low-income students, from preschool through high school. There are 2.7 million children in roughly 5000 Title I schools in California.

Title I funds have always been intended for instruction and instructional services, yet the federal government has never provided a clear definition of what instructional services should entail. At the same time, a recent General Accounting Office (GAO), requested by Senator Feinstein, was unable to measure the amount of Title I funds diverted for administrative purposes, because there are no common definitions.

Now, as States scramble to comply with the new and expanded Title I accountability standards established in "No Child Left Behind," such definitions have become increasingly important.

The bill introduced by Senators Feinstein and Ensign would define direct and indirect services so that all States apply the same standards for Title I use nationwide, while giving the school districts flexibility to use the remaining funds for the indirect costs of administering Title I distribution.

Examples of permissible Direct Services include:

employing teachers and other instructional personnel;
extending academic instruction beyond the normal school day and year, including summer school; and
purchasing instructional resources such as books, materials, and computers.

Examples of indirect services limited to at most 10% of Title I expenditures are:

business services relating to administering the program; and
purchasing or providing facilities maintenance.

"I believe that states must use their limited federal dollars for the fundamental purpose of providing academic instruction. It is time to better direct Title I funds to the true goal of education: to help students learn,"Senator Feinstein said."This is one step toward that goal."

###